|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 341 to 360 of 370 Records
-
1991 (4) TMI 30 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in following its earlier order holding that there were no material before the Commissioner of Incometax to justify his finding that the assessment made under section 143(1) was erroneous in so far as it was prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue ? Accordingly, we direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench SMC , New Delhi, to draw up a statement of the case and refer the aforesaid questions for the opinion of this court. The application under section 256(2) succeeds and is allowed with costs which we assess at Rs. 300.
-
1991 (4) TMI 29 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Reassessment, Recording Of Reasons For Notice Of Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... corded. In the face of the findings recorded by the appellate authorities, in our opinion, no other view was possible except that the assessment in pursuance of the impugned notice under section 148 was ab initio void and non est. Section 148(2) says The Income-tax Officer shall, before issuing any notice tinder this section, record his reasons for doing so. Thus, it was imperative for the Incometax Officer to have recorded his reasons as required by section 148(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, before initiating reassessment proceedings. No authority is necessary in support of this proposition. The answer to the question posed being self-evident, we do not consider that any statable question of law arises out of the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in respect of which any direction need be issued to it for making a reference to this court. In view of the above, the application is rejected. The assessee shall be entitled to its costs which we assess at Rs. 125.
-
1991 (4) TMI 28 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
New Industrial Undertaking, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... ear, namely, 1972-73, which was refused by the Income-tax Officer by saying that the requirements of sub-section (4) of section 80J had not been fulfilled. However, the claim was ultimately allowed in appeal by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The view taken by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was upheld by this court in CIT v. Shankar Cold Storage 1982 138 ITR 286. In the instant case which relates to the assessment year 1973-74, the Tribunal allowed the assessee s claim under section 8OJ relying upon its earlier order for the assessment year 1972-73 which, as already stated, was upheld by this court. No distinguishing features were brought to our notice on which a different view could be taken. We are bound by the decision of this court. Accordingly, in view of the decision of this court taken in the immediately preceding year, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1991 (4) TMI 27 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Benami Transaction, Income From Undisclosed Sources ... ... ... ... ..... t and further rejecting the investment of Rs. 24,840, thereby confirming it as undisclosed income of the appellant, ignoring the agreement to purchase land ? The other questions proposed in this application, in our opinion, are covered by the above questions and represent only different aspects of the above questions. In the circumstances, we do not consider it necessary to issue separate directions in respect of those questions. We, accordingly, direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench B , Delhi, to draw up a statement of the case and refer the aforesaid two questions for the opinion of this court. In the result, the application is allowed in part. The assessee shall be entitled to costs which are assessed at Rs. 300.
-
1991 (4) TMI 26 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Jurisdiction To Levy Penalty, Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... he continuance of the power of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner even in respect of matters which had already been referred to him by the Income-tax Officer prior to April 1, 1976, and the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to pass the penalty order under section 271(1)(c) on or after April 1, 1976, and the proper authority who had jurisdiction to deal with the matter of imposition of penalty was the Income-tax Officer. Following the view taken in the aforesaid case, with which we are bound, we hold that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to pass the penalty order after the amendment of the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, with effect from April 1, 1976, even though the proceedings for levy of penalty were initiated before the coming into force of the Amendment Act. We, accordingly, answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Department. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1991 (4) TMI 25 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Delay In Filing Return, Interest, Return ... ... ... ... ..... ion 3(5) of the United Provinces Sugarcane Cess Act, 1956, for non-payment of arrears of sugarcane cess levied under the said Act, is not allowable as business expenditure under section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The same view was reiterated in two other different Division Bench decisions of this court in Shadi Lal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. v. CIT 1976 103 ITR 748 and Upper Doab Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CIT 1979 116 ITR 928. With respect, we agree with the views expressed in these decisions. Thus, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in its view that the amounts of penalty aggregating to Rs. 1,64,014 incurred by the assessee under the provisions of the U. P. Sugarcane Cess Act and the U. P. Sugarcane (Purchase Tax) Act were not permissible deductions in computing the taxable income of the assessee. We answer the question referred to this court in the affirmative in favour of the Department and against the assessee. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1991 (4) TMI 24 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income Tax, Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... e instance of the petitioners themselves, and we see no illegality in the same. There exists no justification to permit the petitioners at this stage of proceedings to resile from their earlier stand and that too only on the ground that the assessments against the first petitioner were protective and not substantive on which there is a serious contest between the parties. It is also clear that if the second petitioner had not agreed to the adjustment of refunds in view of the notices served on it under section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the amounts to the extent of adjustment could have been realised otherwise from the company (second petitioner), because of its indebtedness to the first petitioner. In our view of the matter, it is not open to the second petitioner to canvass that the assessments against the first petitioner were protective and, consequently, the adjustment against its refunds was illegal. In view of the above, we reject the writ petition summarily.
-
1991 (4) TMI 23 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... ed February 18, 1991, the petitioner was informed that he could make inspection of the reasons recorded for issuance of the notice under section 148 after he had filed the return compliance with the notice under section 148 already served on him. It is now not in dispute that the petitioner has submitted his return in pursuance of the notice under section 148. In this view of the matter, we dispose of this writ petition finally with the direction that, before the Income-tax Officer proceeds further with the assessment in pursuance of the notice under section 148, he shall confront the assessee with the substance of the reasons recorded by him or supply him a certified copy of the reasons. It is also made clear that, after the petitioner is confronted with the reasons if he still feels aggrieved, it shall be open to him to challenge the notice under section, 148 and the proceedings for reassessment on such grounds and before such forum as may be available to him under the law.
-
1991 (4) TMI 22 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Delay In Filing Return, Interest, Return ... ... ... ... ..... t, under article 226 of the Constitution, can reduce the interest or fix it itself. Under article 226, the High Court exercises supervisory power and not that of a court of appeal. But, as the basic character of interest which is payable under section 139(8) of the Act had not been taken note of by the Assessing Officer, I would consider sending back the case to the Commissioner of Income-tax for consideration of the circumstances requiring reduction in interest. Consequently, the petition is allowed in part for the assessment year 1975-76 and allowed in respect of the assessment years 1974-75 and 1976-77. The Commissioner of Income-tax is directed to decide the petitions of the petitioner relating to the assessment years 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1976-77, afresh taking into account the circumstances under which the petitioner could not pay the tax within time. This may be done within three months of the presentation of a copy of this order. The parties shall bear their own costs.
-
1991 (4) TMI 21 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Charitable Purpose, Charitable Trust, Harmonious Construction, Law Applicable To Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... 13(1)(d) would be applicable from the assessment year 1984-85 and not from the assessment year 1983-84. It is also decided that appellate decisions on this issue, hitherto in favour of the assessee, may not be further contested, and pending appeals/references may be withdrawn by the Chief Commissioners of Income-tax in exercise of the powers delegated to them. In our view, the Board has correctly laid down that the provisions of section 13(1)(d) would be applicable from the assessment year 1984-85 and not from the assessment year 1983-84. No trust or institution which failed to change its investment pattern between April 1, 1983, and November 30, 1983, can be denied the benefit of exemption for the assessment year 1983-84 as the crucial date fell within the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1984-85. For the reasons aforesaid, we answer this question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN J.-I agree.
-
1991 (4) TMI 20 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Industrial Undertaking, Investment Allowance ... ... ... ... ..... he ratio of the decision rendered in I. T. R. C. No. 184 of 1985 (Mysore Construction Co. v. CIT 1992 196 ITR 105 (Kar)) disposed of on December 6, 1990, and earlier decisions in I. T. R. C. No. 138 of 1985, etc. (Shankar Construction Co. v. CIT 1991 189 ITR 463 (Kar)), disposed of on November 8, 1990, this question is answered in the negative and against the Revenue.
-
1991 (4) TMI 19 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Charitable Trust, Draft Assessment Order U/S 144B, Exemption For Charitable Trust, IAC's Instructions U/S 144-A, Interest And Rent Received By Charitable Trust
-
1991 (4) TMI 18 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Depreciation, New Industrial Undertaking, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... , therefore, entitled to depreciation at the rate of 15 as against 10 ? We do not consider it necessary to set out the facts which have bearing on these questions, inasmuch as learned counsel for both the sides agree that a similar controversy as is involved in the questions now referred to us had come up for consideration before this court between the same parties in Addl. CIT v. Syntex Fabrics Ltd. (1991 191 ITR 52, That case related to the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73, while we are concerned here with the assessment year 1973-74. The controversies referred in these questions were considered under questions Nos. 4 and 5 in the case decided earlier. On both these questions, the answer was returned in favour of the assessee and against the Department. Following the decision in the aforesaid case with which we agree, we answer both the questions referred to us in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the department. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1991 (4) TMI 17 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... Assistant Commissioner had opined that out of the amount received, only an amount of Rs. 91,004 constituted revenue receipt. Evidently, the Income-tax Officer has not applied his mind to the relevant facts. He seems to have proceeded on the assumption that the entire compensation amount constituted a revenue receipt. In this, he was evidently wrong. The Tribunal has now found that only the sum of Rs. 12,500 representing the interest was includible in the income and that the remaining amount of Rs. 2,05,000 constituted a capital receipt. If so, the reopening of the assessment after eight years was clearly unsustainable under section 149 of the Act as it then stood on this ground alone, we answer the question referred in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. We do not think it necessary to express any opinion upon the correctness or otherwise of the other reasons given by the Tribunal in its order. The reference is disposed of accordingly.
-
1991 (4) TMI 16 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Advance Tax ... ... ... ... ..... the question of underestimating the same cannot and does not arise and the provisions of section 216 of the Act cannot be attracted in such a case. The court has to interpret a provision according to the plain meaning of the section and cannot read more into the language of a provision than what is warranted by the express provisions of the section. Where the Legislature uses two different words in the same provision, it is not permissible to equate the scope and meaning of the two words which, on their plain language, are different. It is a well-settled rule that, when two interpretations are possible, in other words, where the provision is capable of two alternative meanings, the one favouring the taxpayer is to be adopted, particularly when such a provision purports to impose penal interest. For the reasons aforesaid, we answer the question in this reference in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN J.-I agree.
-
1991 (4) TMI 15 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e respondent-assessee in each case. Shri Jetley, learned counsel for the Revenue, stated that the assessee in each case has long been served and has undertaken to file the Department s affidavit of service by Monday, April 15, 1991. It has been brought to our notice that, in view of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of J. M. Bhatia, A. A. C. of Wealth-tax v. J. M. Shah 1985 156 ITR 474, the question has to be answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. It is, however, admitted that, in view of another judgment of our court in the case of CWT v. Smt. Godavaribai R. Podar 1988 169 ITR 245, it is only the ornaments studded with precious stones whose value is to be included in the net wealth of the assessee. Accordingly, we direct the Tribunal that, while giving effect to our judgment, the Tribunal shall include the value of those items of ornaments/jewellery which fall within the meaning of the word jewellery as it stood during those years. No order as to costs.
-
1991 (4) TMI 14 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Company, Surtax ... ... ... ... ..... ITR 723, the second question, that is the question referred to us at the instance of the Commissioner is also to be answered in favour of the Revenue. Accordingly, we answer the second question in the negative and in favour of the Revenue subject to the direction that the Tribunal, while giving effect to our judgment determine, whether and to what extent the gratuity reserve is in excess of the assessee s gratuity liability determined on an actuarial basis. It will be only the excess, if any, that will have to be treated as reserve . It is stated by Shri Mehta, learned counsel for the assessee, that as regards the question referred to us at the instance of the Commissioner, our court has granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the judgments in CIT v. National Rayon Corporation Ltd. 1986 160 ITR 716 and CIT v. National Rayon Corporation Ltd. 1986 160 ITR 723. Accordingly, leave to appeal is granted as regards this question in this case also. No order as to costs.
-
1991 (4) TMI 13 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Assessment Exceeding Return By 20 Per Cent, Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... essee had filed no explanation whatsoever to the penalty notice. For the above reasons, we are of the opinion that the finding of the Tribunal on which it allowed the appeal is unsustainable. However, it must be said that the Tribunal did not have the benefit of the decision of the Supreme Court in Sadayappan s case 1990 185 ITR 49. Evidently, it was still following the ratio of CIT v. Anwar Ali 1970 76 ITR 696 (SC). In all the circumstances, it is a proper case where the Tribunal should be directed to rehear the penalty appeal and dispose of it according to law. Now, coming to the two questions referred, it is evident that question No. 1 is based on a factual misapprehension. In its order, the Tribunal has nowhere said that the assessee has discharged the onus lying upon it by virtue of the said Explanation. We, therefore, decline to answer question No. 1. Question No. 2 is answered in the negative with a direction to rehear the appeal. The reference is ordered accordingly.
-
1991 (4) TMI 12 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Income-tax Officer was not correct in reducing the sum from the gratuity reserve as this was not part of the gratuity reserve as on January 1, 1970, but pertained to the financial year 1970, and was deducted in the income-tax assessment for tile year 1971-72. It is evident from the above that the amount of Rs. 2,128 did not represent gratuity liability for the assessment year 1970-71 or any other earlier assessment year. It represented the gratuity liability of the assessee for the assessment year 1971-72. We are concerned here with the capital computation of the assessee-company as on the first day of the previous year, that is, on the last day of the earlier period relating to the assessment year 1970-71. Accordingly, we do not agree with Shri Jetley, that the first question is also covered by the Supreme Court s decision in Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1981 132 ITR 559, and answer the question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. No order as to costs.
-
1991 (4) TMI 11 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Depreciation, Investment Allowance ... ... ... ... ..... ved by the assessee-company from SIPCOT for computing the depreciation and investment allowance admissible to it ? Recently, we had occasion to consider an identical question while dealing with Srinivas Industries v. CIT 1991 188 ITR 22. It is not in dispute that the answer returned in that reference would be applicable to this reference as well. In view of that, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and against the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs.
....
|
